|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - louoates
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 31
101
« on: October 14, 2011, 21:23 »
I'm determined to stay with a site only if it is worth continuing with my current level (very low) of uploads. So far I've deleted all but IS, SS, DT, and Veer accounts. If Veer was older I would have pulled that plug a year ago but I've stayed with them longer due to some occasional hot streaks that, hopefully will continue.
Big Stock is just not selling for me and shows no improvement I can see.
Anyone here have any reason I don't know about that BS will suddenly improve?
102
« on: October 14, 2011, 09:25 »
I finally decided to pull all of my troops (I mean images) home. I just requested FT to cancel my account and remove all my images I hadn't already deleted. Looking back at my submission records show me that they had consistently rejected good images and contributed too little sales-wise to my earnings. I'd rather not have to face any more contributor humiliation at their hands.
103
« on: October 05, 2011, 17:02 »
I would design my own website to sell just my own stock photos direct. 100% exclusive. That would be much more fun than seeing income streams drying up with no alternative. I love the name Warmpicture but I don't know much about it other than the mention earlier here and visiting the site briefly.
104
« on: September 29, 2011, 09:34 »
Dear Mr. Lou Oates Hello. My name is Momoko Nagai and I work for PIXTA, the company operates a micro stock photo website. Now, about 89,000 of creators have been selling their about 2,000,000 of images on PIXTA ( http://pixta.jp/). Although our website is only in Japanese for now, our clients number is going up. And English version will be released in this year, so after that, I think we could be able to get bigger number of client certainly. Mainly we stock images created by Japanese many kind of creators for now. However we also would like to stock all kinds of image to get more clients than now we have. Could you let us deal in your images? This is a great opportunity for not only us and you, because if you let us deal in your images, your images would be conspicuous on our website since we do not have enough images like your taste. And as the additional step, if you would be our content partner, you could get so many advantages like higher commission rate. If you have further inquiries, please check our guideline on our website, the address is here; http://pixta.jp/tool/pixta_cpguideline.pdfAnd if you have any interest in our service or system, please e-mail us. We will show you more information. Thank you. Best regards, Momoko Nagai
105
« on: September 13, 2011, 09:36 »
I have this weird theory that the disambiguate process that began at IS a few years ago consigned a huge number of images to some bottomless pit. I know my sales at IS dropped 40-60% immediately thereafter and never recovered. And, yes, I did go through the torturous process of updating my keywords although it took a few months. It didn't seem to make any difference at all in my sales level that remained far below past comparable months.
106
« on: September 12, 2011, 09:38 »
It's been my experience that the lowest paid (and poorest trained) employees in the security field are the least likely to know about photography freedoms. They believe that their badge or shoulder patch gives them the right to tell you anything they want. It's a total power trip for them. My policy is to shoot my pictures where I'm positive I'm in a proper place and to inform whomever is questioning me of that fact and if they don't like it to call their supervisor or a legitimate police authority immediately. I always stand my ground in these cases and make sure I photograph the person who is questioning me.
107
« on: August 30, 2011, 10:10 »
I'll repeat what I predicted over a year ago: The end game at IS is to have all exclusives. This latest go round is just a step in that direction. There may be two or three more intermediate (and increasingly noxious) steps to drag us into the exclusive camp before IS goes 100% exclusive. They will still have an income stream from non-exclusives via their partnerships.
108
« on: August 29, 2011, 16:08 »
I read that if we don't agree (respond by checking the agree box) they will "deem" that we agree after a stated time limit and the new agreement will go into effect.
Excuse me while I bend over.
109
« on: August 22, 2011, 11:28 »
I've just wasted 15 minutes on FT's new site trying to find my sales totals by image. No such luck. All I could find was MyFiles/MySoldFiles that gives the latest sales by date along with a thumbnail. Gone are any sorts other than the worthless Date sort that just shows you image sales from the earliest/latest date sold. No totals that I could find. No display of my portfolio either. I'm pretty sick of site designs that make it more difficult to analyze past work.
Anyone else find any way to use DT for any positive study?
110
« on: August 22, 2011, 11:14 »
In the details of the upgrade notice it said that the Google image search wouldn't work with it but would in the future. I've made it a policy not to upgrade Firefox for at least a month. I'm tired of having problems with upgrades -- no matter what software -- when the previous version is working just fine. Let some other suckers ferret out the glitches.
111
« on: August 18, 2011, 22:37 »
I'm rarely uploading anything this year mainly due to many of the problems complained about lately. Plus being basically lazy. But I must point out that my last six uploads were rejected by SS for reasons that left me scratching my head in disbelief. I've been accepted at SS at a 90+ rate and had usually agreed with the rejections even though most were accepted at IS and elsewhere. One was a very good shot of a new Firestone Dealership under editorial that was rejected for being not newsworthy. I thought that odd because none of the other images on SS with the "Firestone" keyword were newsworthy by any stretch. My believe was that editorial images were used to illustrate stories that might relate to the companies involved such as showing one of their storefronts and signs. I didn't think it had to be THAT specific store, but that company in general. 
112
« on: August 18, 2011, 15:30 »
I think many of us have voiced this concept over the last few years. I love the idea of Google serving as the main search engine if they could somehow bundle an e-commerce function and an image delivery system with it. Sort of an ebay style delivery system where we control what, when, and how the images are delivered after we're paid via Paypal or similar. I would think they could take, say, 10% = 20% off the top and do well.
113
« on: August 18, 2011, 15:24 »
I wasted about 30 minutes trying to find any of my images stolen by that guy. I'm insulted that I couldn't find any. I think many of my images are more than worthy of being stolen by someone truly wanting to make money.
I agree that the selections of images are truly weird. In one of my best selling categories he had almost 1,000 images with a breathtakingly different range of styles, treatments in wildly varying quality levels. Red flag time. Glad to see he's being rooted out site by site.
114
« on: August 12, 2011, 12:10 »
Apart from the microstock sites monitoring any image use you have little chance to do so yourself. Even if you find a violation you have next to no chance to collect. And you must by now understand that many of your items will be stolen and used without anyone's knowledge. It's a wild, lawless world out there on the web so most of us simply accept that fact.
115
« on: August 06, 2011, 09:06 »
Miss-used this idea would be a tool of the devil. The unintended consequences could be truly devastating. Another concept with merit only in a perfect world where the inhabitants of the World Order dwell.
116
« on: August 02, 2011, 20:26 »
The link says the motel sign bunny not only had a very close resemblance to the trademarked rabbit but the name of the motel was originally the Bugs Bunny Motel. Did someone actually believe they wouldn't be sued? Seems to me that a lawyer fresh from law school would win that one.
117
« on: August 02, 2011, 16:54 »
Could you make it a generic pig design that you can sell unrestricted without fending off hordes of lawyers?
118
« on: July 27, 2011, 19:28 »
Looking at this example on Amazon of the Kindle version of a book vs. old paperbacks & new shows you the direction the printed word will be taking. Much like images. I do believe that the author in this case will share in the small price of the Kindle version. I further believe that the author will do very well at this low price because he wouldn't share any royalty from his books sold in half-price book stores or flea markets.
119
« on: July 24, 2011, 13:42 »
Thanks Snufkin.......it worked I am in.
-Don
I can't get in either way. I'll try later.
120
« on: July 23, 2011, 13:20 »
For whatever technical reason my sales at IS nosedived almost 50% after disambiguation and never came back. I also had numerous snotty objections to my keywords from whomever or whatever is in charge of such things.
121
« on: July 23, 2011, 10:00 »
sjlocke: I really like the advice several folks have made regarding focusing on very specific subjects. In my opinion the future of successful stock shooting will be in highly specific fields. Much like a boutique shop amidst big box stores. If I were a buyer I'd rather search a site "Successful Business People Photographs" than wading through the spam-packed 10 million image sites.
122
« on: July 22, 2011, 09:27 »
I didn't start this topic to kick anybody's hornet's nest. Well, maybe a little. But after closely reading your comments and the comments over at Luminous Landscape I have learned much, even changing some of my views. So for my own clarity and to provide a summery service for those too busy to read all the strings on this topic I'll summarize things about microstock that everybody (mostly) will agree with:
Top Ten Facts About Microstock Photography:
1. Stock images used to pay better.
2. Microstock sites will continue to reduce the cost of images.
3. The number of microstock contributors will rise.
4. The number of microstock sites will rise.
5. The demand for microstock images will generally rise with the growth of the economy.
6. The cost of shooting microstock is higher than one would think.
7. Thieves steal images at a surprisingly high rate.
8. Folks are opinionated about this topic.
9. To make a living at microstock you have to work your ass off, be very talented, and somewhat lucky.
10. Shooting microstock is not involuntary servitude.
123
« on: July 21, 2011, 13:00 »
How can you be doing micro at a loss only cost involved is equipment and I presume most serious photographers have the equipment anyway. Operating micro at a loss is impossible.
The only place you pay for uploading is the photographers-choice and everyone knows thats a scam anyway.
You can certainly operate at a loss if you calculate your time and overhead. As a fun hobby or occasional supplement to other work it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of time worrying about costs. But you've got to consider all costs if you want to make a real business out of it. My formula to live off of microstock income would be to produce at least 20 salable stock images per day at very low cost. You must be accepted on at least three of the biggest sites. You must also make sure that at least 5 of those daily images will produce a minimum of 5 downloads per month on at least one major microstock site. If you can produce that level of acceptable images you may break even after a year providing you can live on rice and beans and can afford your divorce attorney. If you can't earn $1,000 to $2,000/mo net after that first year you might seek other work. This is my calculation based on my experiences with my images so results may vary. Should the sites be successful in reducing payouts further I hope your resume is up to date.
124
« on: July 21, 2011, 08:53 »
Since everyone's idea of 'making a living' is different, I'm not sure any random number would mean much.
Whats the other site?
Let's say that making a living means doing microstock full time and not starving. Here's a link to that other site. The discussion is interwoven with the Google image search topic. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=55686.0
125
« on: July 21, 2011, 08:35 »
In response to a tidal wave of negative microstock comments on another photography blog site I said that there were still thousands of folks who were making a living at microstock. This, of course, let loose a barrage of attack comments on all things microstock. I can't find any actual numbers to rely on to back up my estimates. I had said that I thought there were some 70-90,000 microstock contributors and that it wasn't a stretch to estimate that several thousand were "making a living at it".
What's your opinion?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 31
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
